3 Replies Latest reply on Jun 25, 2011 3:22 PM by JEShort01

    New Build for Photoshop/Premiere CS5 - Comments Please

    Bill in Anacortes

      After a good deal of research the following is what I have finally come up with for a new computer. Work about 75% in Photoshop CS5 - very large layered files, HDR, and panoramas. 15%-20% Video editing,  5%-10% - Internet instruction/ routine business... no gaming. Would appreciate any comments.

       

      Asus PSP67 Pro REV 3.0 - Motherboard

      Intel i7 2600K Quad Core 3.4 GHz - CPU

      Kingston 16 GB DDR3-1333 (4x4GB) - RAM

      NVIDIA GeForce GTX   570 1280MB - Video Card (Mercury Playback Engine)

      Intel 510 120 GB SSD SATA 6 Gb/sec OS and Applications

      Intel 320  80GB SSD SATA II - Scratch Disc

      WD Caviar Black 2.0 TB SATA 6 Gb/sec HDD - Data Disc

      ASUS 24x DVD-RW Lightscribe - CD/DVD

      Antec P183 V3 - Case

      Antec CP-850w - Power Supply

      Liquid Cooling System

      WIN7 Professional (64 Bit)

       

      Running Photoshop CS5

      Premiere CS5

      LightRoom 3

      Ptgui - Stitching

      HDR Express & Expose

      Canon DPP

      Photomatix

      OnOne LR & PS Plug-Ins

      The other usuals - Firefox - Acrobat - Word - Publisher

       

      Had thought of a RAID 0 configuration for the "Data HDD"... I use an on-line and external back-up solution for my files so don't really need RAID 1. Thought the RAID 0 configuration might speed things up a bit.... OPINIONS?

       

      Thanks for the input

        • 1. Re: New Build for Photoshop/Premiere CS5 - Comments Please
          JEShort01 Level 4

          Bill,

           

          Your build list looks great!

           

          Raid 0 does indeed speed things up for both Premiere and Photoshop (and Bridge) - go for it!

           

          I would suggest 4 x 1TB (WD Blacks are good) in a RAID 0 configuration for everything but your OS and programs: media, projects, swap, scratch, Premiere output, etc.

           

          Note: this is a Premiere forum section and the consensus here seems to be that two 2x1TB RAID 0 arrays are better for Premiere, however as you are working with Photos a lot, and VERY large ones at that, I think that you would really appreciate a 4x RAID 0. If cost is prohibitive, go with previous gen. 1TB drives which are very inexpensive now (ie. Hitachi 7k1000.C, Samsung F3, WD Black 32MB cache, etc.).

           

          I personally like your SSD boot drive choice, but would suggest striking the 80GB SSD Scratch disk completely, assuming you go with at least some sort of RAID 0.

           

          Jim

          • 2. Re: New Build for Photoshop/Premiere CS5 - Comments Please
            Bill in Anacortes Level 1

            Jim,

             

            Thanks for the input.You hit on the one area that I am still up in the air about.

             

            I have been going around in circles with the RAID 0 HDD vs. SSD (Scratch) and SSD (Data).

             

            I know that the HDD has been one of the "bottlenecks" in my present set-up. On one hand, the expense difference between HDD & SSD leads me towards the HDD. On the other hand, in a RAID 0 configuration, one has twice the chance of a failure. With my back-ups handled by on-line and external means it really comes down to speed vs. reliability. Finally, with the Data Drive, it doesn't seem to make sense to have a really fast system and then create the same speed restriction that I now have.

             

            With the RAID 0 Scratch Disc I would, aagain, be doubling the failure possibility over the small SSD.

             

            As you no doubt can tell... I want to turn the unit on and have it work... fast! As I am retired and now have my share of "Senior Moments" I would like to direct my energy towards prosessing photo and video work... have them process in less time than I have remaining... and have the least  exposure  to component failures possible. Having been a commercial pilot for over 35 years I know that if it is mechanical it will fail.

             

            Would it seem reasonable that I use the on-line backup just for my "critical" photo work and then take advantage of USB3 and an External Drive to make a "mirror" to the Data Drive? (I know that I could use RAID 0 + 1 but it has been recommended that I not do that)

             

            Thanks again... Look forward to your thoughts

             

            Bill

            • 3. Re: New Build for Photoshop/Premiere CS5 - Comments Please
              JEShort01 Level 4

              Bill,

               

              Had to laugh, "you are still up in the air" (from a retired pilot)!

               

              I too wanted speed and reliability, and I spent way more that two RAID 0's to get it. I too am a hobbiest, but have been using hardware RAID 5 for all my photos and video for at least 8 years now and will never settle for less. Had a 4 drive, then 5 drive, and am currently using a 8 drive array. My OS and programs are on a RAID 0 SSD array that I do an image backup on every so often in case they ever melt down (ShadowProtect backs up 80GB to the RAID 5 in 4 - 1/2 minutes!).

               

              Why do I love drive speed? When I use Bridge to navigate photos after shooting 400 images, I can see full monitor images at full resolution faster than one per second to do preliminary ratings (1 = trash, 2 = keep, 3 = good). Also, drive speed with today's cpus allows for editing HD AVCHD video without any issues and fast DVD rendering.

               

              I use SATA drives connected with SATA cables (via cold boot) for offsite data backup; it's a solution that is WAY fast compared with USB this and tha and certainly faster than on-line storage.

               

              Their are lots of users here with lots of opions so keep reading for other thoughts.

               

              And, good luck with this ever so difficult decision: reliability, speed, low cost... You can't have them all - you must pick two!

               

              Jim